map_view

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful behavioral context: impact defaults to working-tree changes, and 'coverage' states the method and its limits, which signals reliability boundaries beyond the structured annotations.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single dense sentence with no filler; every clause adds information about a view or behavior. It is slightly overloaded and would benefit from list formatting, but it remains efficient and front-loaded with the tool's core purpose.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a read-only tool with only 2 parameters, full schema coverage, and clear enum explanations, the description is mostly sufficient. The main gap is that it does not describe the response shape or confirm the meaning of 'coverage' in the output, though no output schema exists to fill that gap.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100%, but the description adds meaning beyond the enum labels: it defines each view's content (e.g., dataflow = entry points -> persistence, tests = static reachability) and clarifies the targets parameter's impact-specific default (working-tree changes), which is not fully captured by the schema's simple null default.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states this tool returns a single architecture view and enumerates the exact view types (hierarchy, dependencies, dataflow, config, tests, history, impact) with concise definitions. This distinguishes map_view from sibling tools by spelling out the file-level and static-reachability scopes.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

It implies when to use each view by describing what each contains (e.g., 'dependencies (file-level calls/imports)'), but it never explicitly says when to prefer this tool over siblings like relation_trace or change_review. There are no exclusions or alternative routing, so guidance is implicit rather than explicit.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.